Letter from the Central Committee of the R.S.D.L.P. toThe Editors ofNashe Slovo[2]

Written:Written on March 10 (23), 1915Published:First published in 1931, inLenin Miscellany XVII.

      Published according to a copy made by N. K. Krupskaya.Source:Lenin
	  Collected Works,

      Progress Publishers,[197[4]],

      Moscow,Volume 21,

      pages165-170.Translated:Transcription\Markup:D. WaltersandR. CymbalaPublic Domain:Lenin Internet Archive

      2003

      (2005).You may freely copy, distribute,
	display and perform this work; as well as make derivative and
	commercial works. Please credit “Marxists Internet
	Archive” as your source.

DearComrades:

Wefully agree with you that the rallying of all genuine
    Social-Democratic internationalists is one of the most pressing tasks of the
    moment .... Before replying to your practical proposal, we consider it
    necessary to clarify with frankness certain preliminary questions, so as to
    know whether we are at one in the main issue. You are quite right in feeling
    indignant about Alexinsky, Plekhanov and the like having come out in the
    foreign press, claiming that theirs is “the voice of the Russian
    proletariat or of influential groups therein”. This must be fought
    against. To carry on the struggle, the root of the evil has to be got
    at. There cannot be the least doubt that there has not been, and there is
    not, any greater vice than the so-called system of representation of the
    notorious “trends” abroad. In this we can hardly lay the blame
    on the foreigners. Let us recall the recent past. Were not Alexinsky and
    Plekhanov (and not these two alone) given the opportunity, at the selfsame
    Brussels Conference (July 3, 1914), to depict themselves as
    “trends”? After this, can it be surprising that even now
    foreigners take them for representatives of “trends”? This evil
    cannot be countered with the aid of some declaration or another. What is
    needed is a long struggle. For that struggle to be successful, we must say
    to ourselves, once and for all, that we recognise only thoseorganisationswhich for years have been linked up with the working
    masses, and have been empowered by recognised committees, etc., andthat we
    brand, as deception of the workers, a system under which a half-dozen
    intellectuals who have brought out two or three issues of a newspaper or
    journal declare themselves a “trend”, or lay claim to
    “equal rights” with the Party.

Doesagreement exist between us on this, comrades?

Then,about the internationalists. In one of your recent editorials, you
    enumerated those organisations which, in your opinion, hold an
    internationalist stand. High on that list is-the Bund. We would like to know
    what grounds you have to number the Bund among the internationalists. The
    resolution of its Central Committee does not contain a single definite word
    on the major problems of socialism. It breathes a most unprincipled
    eclecticism. The Bund’s organ(Information
Bulletin)[3]indubitably
    adheres to the standpoint of Germanophile chauvinism, or else gives a
    “synthesis” of French and German chauvinism. It was with good
    reason that an article by Kosovsky adorned the pagesof Die Neue Zeit,a journal which (we hope you agree with us on this) is now among the
    most disreputable of the so-called “socialist” press organs.

Westand heart and soul for unity among all internationalists. We would
    very much like their number to be greater. We must not, however, go in for
    self-deception; we cannot count among the internationalists people and
    organisations whose internationalism exists only on paper.

Whatshould be understood by internationalism? Is it, for instance,
    possible to number among the internationalists those who stand for the
    International being restored on the principle of a mutual
    “amnesty”? As you know, Kautsky is the leading representative of
    the “amnesty” theory. Victor Adior has come out in the same
    vein. We consider the adherents of an amnesty the most dangerous opponents
    of internationalism. Restored on the basis of an “amnesty”, the
    International would cheapen socialism. All concessions and all agreements
    with Kautsky and Co. are inexcusable. A most determined struggle against the
    “amnesty” theory is aconditio sine qua nonof
    internationalism. It is vain to speak of internationalism if there is no
    desire and no readiness to make a complete break with the defenders of an
    “amnesty”. The question arises: does agreement on this
    fundamental issue exist between us? A negative attitude towardsthe
    “amnesty” policy seems to have been hinted at in your
    newspaper. You will, however, argee that before any practical steps can be
    made we are entitled to ask you to let us know in detail how you regard this
    issue.

Connectedwith this is the question of the attitude towards the
    Organising Committee. In our very first letter to
you,[1]we considered it
    necessary to tell you quite frankly that there are serious grounds to doubt
    the internationalism of that body. You have not made any attempt to dispel
    that opinion. We again ask you: what facts do you possess to consider that
    the Organising Committee adheres to an internationalist stand? It cannot be
    positively denied that Axelrod’s stand, set forth on several occasions
    in print, is patently chauvinist (almost Plekhanovite). Axelrod is without
    doubt the Organising Committee’s leading representative. Further,
    consider the Organising Committee’s official statements. Its report to
    the Copenhagen
Conference[4]was couched in a vein that led to its being
    published by the most extreme chauvinists in Germany. Statements by the
    Organising Committee’s “Secretariat Abroad” are much the
    same. At best, they say nothing that is definite. On the other hand,
    Larin—officially, on behalf of the Organising Committee and not of
    some kind of secretariat abroad—has made statements designed to defend
    chauvinism. What is there internationalist about this? Is it not clear that
    the Organising Committee adheres completely to the standpoint of a mutual
    “amnesty”?

Furthermore,what guarantees are there that the Organising Committee
    represents some force in Russia? Today, following the statement inNasha
    Zarya,this question is most pertinent. For years, theNasha Zaryagroup conducted their line; they brought out a daily paper, and went
    in for mass agitation of their own brand. But what about the Organising
    Committee?

Weall acknowledge that the issue will be settled, not by the alignment
    of forces in groups abroad-in Zurich, Paris, etc.-but by the influence
    enjoyed among the workers of St. Petersburg and of all Russia. This should
    be kept in view, whatever the steps we take.

Suchare the considerations we have wanted to inform you of. We shall be
    very glad to get a detailed and clear reply to all these questions. Then we
    shall be able to think of what is to come next.

[1]Seepages 125–28of this
    volume.—Transcriber–DW—Lenin

[2]Thisdocument has no original heading. The title has been provided by the
    Institute of Marxism-Leninism of the Central Committee, C.P.S.U.

[3]Thisrefers
    to theInformation Bulletin, an organ of the Bund Organization
    Abroad. It was published in Geneva from June 1911 to June 1916. In all,
    eleven issues appeared.

Itwas succeeded by theBulletin of the Bund
    Committee Abroad.Only two issues appeared, in September and December
    1916.

[4]Thereference is to the Copenhagen Conference of Socialists of Neutral Countries
    (Sweden, Norway, Denmark and Holland), which took place on January 17-18,
    1915, with the aim of restoring the Second International. The Conference
    resolved to appeal, through the socialist parties’ members of
    parliaments, to the respective governments, offering to act as mediators
    between the belligerent countries and attempt to bring about the termination
    of the war.